Pathway Summary
Consort map
Demographic information
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 1271 | control, N = 641 | treatment, N = 631 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
age | 125 | 50.62 ± 12.79 (25 - 74) | 50.80 ± 12.67 (25 - 74) | 50.44 ± 13.00 (28 - 73) | 0.875 |
Unknown | 2 | 2 | 0 | ||
gender | 127 | 0.795 | |||
f | 98 (77%) | 50 (78%) | 48 (76%) | ||
m | 29 (23%) | 14 (22%) | 15 (24%) | ||
occupation | 127 | 0.551 | |||
day_training | 2 (1.6%) | 2 (3.1%) | 0 (0%) | ||
full_time | 16 (13%) | 8 (12%) | 8 (13%) | ||
homemaker | 12 (9.4%) | 5 (7.8%) | 7 (11%) | ||
other | 2 (1.6%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (3.2%) | ||
part_time | 22 (17%) | 10 (16%) | 12 (19%) | ||
retired | 35 (28%) | 17 (27%) | 18 (29%) | ||
self_employ | 4 (3.1%) | 2 (3.1%) | 2 (3.2%) | ||
student | 2 (1.6%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (3.2%) | ||
t_and_e | 2 (1.6%) | 1 (1.6%) | 1 (1.6%) | ||
unemploy | 30 (24%) | 19 (30%) | 11 (17%) | ||
marital | 127 | 0.808 | |||
cohabitation | 1 (0.8%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (1.6%) | ||
divore | 12 (9.4%) | 8 (12%) | 4 (6.3%) | ||
in_relationship | 3 (2.4%) | 2 (3.1%) | 1 (1.6%) | ||
married | 35 (28%) | 18 (28%) | 17 (27%) | ||
none | 66 (52%) | 31 (48%) | 35 (56%) | ||
seperation | 3 (2.4%) | 2 (3.1%) | 1 (1.6%) | ||
widow | 7 (5.5%) | 3 (4.7%) | 4 (6.3%) | ||
edu | 127 | 0.341 | |||
bachelor | 32 (25%) | 12 (19%) | 20 (32%) | ||
diploma | 23 (18%) | 15 (23%) | 8 (13%) | ||
hd_ad | 3 (2.4%) | 2 (3.1%) | 1 (1.6%) | ||
postgraduate | 11 (8.7%) | 5 (7.8%) | 6 (9.5%) | ||
primary | 8 (6.3%) | 2 (3.1%) | 6 (9.5%) | ||
secondary_1_3 | 16 (13%) | 9 (14%) | 7 (11%) | ||
secondary_4_5 | 29 (23%) | 17 (27%) | 12 (19%) | ||
secondary_6_7 | 5 (3.9%) | 2 (3.1%) | 3 (4.8%) | ||
fam_income | 127 | 0.979 | |||
10001_12000 | 6 (4.7%) | 2 (3.1%) | 4 (6.3%) | ||
12001_14000 | 6 (4.7%) | 3 (4.7%) | 3 (4.8%) | ||
14001_16000 | 6 (4.7%) | 2 (3.1%) | 4 (6.3%) | ||
16001_18000 | 3 (2.4%) | 1 (1.6%) | 2 (3.2%) | ||
18001_20000 | 5 (3.9%) | 3 (4.7%) | 2 (3.2%) | ||
20001_above | 25 (20%) | 14 (22%) | 11 (17%) | ||
2001_4000 | 19 (15%) | 11 (17%) | 8 (13%) | ||
4001_6000 | 12 (9.4%) | 5 (7.8%) | 7 (11%) | ||
6001_8000 | 11 (8.7%) | 6 (9.4%) | 5 (7.9%) | ||
8001_10000 | 9 (7.1%) | 4 (6.2%) | 5 (7.9%) | ||
below_2000 | 25 (20%) | 13 (20%) | 12 (19%) | ||
medication | 127 | 112 (88%) | 57 (89%) | 55 (87%) | 0.759 |
onset_duration | 124 | 14.98 ± 10.30 (0 - 56) | 15.95 ± 11.15 (0 - 56) | 13.94 ± 9.30 (0 - 35) | 0.278 |
Unknown | 3 | 0 | 3 | ||
onset_age | 122 | 35.89 ± 14.33 (10 - 65) | 34.66 ± 13.01 (10 - 61) | 37.16 ± 15.58 (14 - 65) | 0.337 |
Unknown | 5 | 2 | 3 | ||
1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test | |||||
Measurement
Table
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 1271 | control, N = 641 | treatment, N = 631 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | 127 | 3.19 ± 1.17 (1 - 5) | 3.28 ± 1.21 (1 - 5) | 3.10 ± 1.13 (1 - 5) | 0.374 |
recovery_stage_b | 127 | 17.98 ± 2.69 (9 - 24) | 17.97 ± 2.77 (9 - 24) | 17.98 ± 2.64 (13 - 24) | 0.975 |
ras_confidence | 127 | 30.13 ± 4.91 (18 - 45) | 29.97 ± 4.33 (19 - 40) | 30.29 ± 5.47 (18 - 45) | 0.718 |
ras_willingness | 127 | 11.87 ± 2.05 (5 - 15) | 11.77 ± 1.99 (5 - 15) | 11.98 ± 2.12 (7 - 15) | 0.550 |
ras_goal | 127 | 17.42 ± 3.09 (11 - 25) | 17.30 ± 2.80 (12 - 24) | 17.54 ± 3.37 (11 - 25) | 0.660 |
ras_reliance | 127 | 13.32 ± 2.88 (7 - 20) | 13.19 ± 2.64 (8 - 18) | 13.46 ± 3.12 (7 - 20) | 0.595 |
ras_domination | 127 | 9.92 ± 2.40 (3 - 15) | 10.22 ± 2.34 (3 - 15) | 9.62 ± 2.45 (3 - 15) | 0.160 |
symptom | 127 | 29.99 ± 9.39 (14 - 56) | 30.03 ± 9.51 (14 - 55) | 29.95 ± 9.34 (15 - 56) | 0.962 |
slof_work | 127 | 22.53 ± 4.71 (10 - 30) | 22.73 ± 4.30 (13 - 30) | 22.32 ± 5.12 (10 - 30) | 0.620 |
slof_relationship | 127 | 25.45 ± 5.80 (11 - 35) | 25.02 ± 5.58 (13 - 35) | 25.89 ± 6.04 (11 - 35) | 0.399 |
satisfaction | 127 | 20.77 ± 7.08 (5 - 35) | 20.17 ± 6.67 (5 - 33) | 21.38 ± 7.48 (5 - 35) | 0.338 |
mhc_emotional | 127 | 11.11 ± 3.77 (3 - 18) | 10.83 ± 3.63 (3 - 17) | 11.40 ± 3.92 (4 - 18) | 0.397 |
mhc_social | 127 | 15.22 ± 5.56 (5 - 30) | 15.16 ± 5.51 (7 - 30) | 15.29 ± 5.65 (5 - 29) | 0.896 |
mhc_psychological | 127 | 22.09 ± 6.30 (6 - 36) | 21.89 ± 5.78 (9 - 36) | 22.30 ± 6.83 (6 - 36) | 0.715 |
resilisnce | 127 | 16.60 ± 4.65 (6 - 30) | 16.11 ± 4.22 (6 - 24) | 17.10 ± 5.03 (7 - 30) | 0.234 |
social_provision | 127 | 13.72 ± 2.79 (5 - 20) | 13.33 ± 2.35 (8 - 20) | 14.11 ± 3.15 (5 - 20) | 0.115 |
els_value_living | 127 | 17.06 ± 3.02 (5 - 25) | 16.69 ± 2.62 (8 - 22) | 17.43 ± 3.35 (5 - 25) | 0.167 |
els_life_fulfill | 127 | 12.77 ± 3.44 (4 - 20) | 12.30 ± 3.20 (5 - 19) | 13.25 ± 3.63 (4 - 20) | 0.117 |
els | 127 | 29.83 ± 5.82 (9 - 45) | 28.98 ± 5.06 (17 - 38) | 30.68 ± 6.43 (9 - 45) | 0.100 |
social_connect | 127 | 26.27 ± 9.21 (8 - 48) | 26.91 ± 8.75 (8 - 45) | 25.62 ± 9.68 (8 - 48) | 0.433 |
shs_agency | 127 | 14.39 ± 5.14 (3 - 24) | 14.03 ± 4.66 (3 - 21) | 14.75 ± 5.59 (3 - 24) | 0.435 |
shs_pathway | 127 | 16.17 ± 3.93 (4 - 24) | 15.92 ± 3.65 (8 - 24) | 16.43 ± 4.21 (4 - 24) | 0.470 |
shs | 127 | 30.56 ± 8.65 (7 - 48) | 29.95 ± 7.92 (13 - 45) | 31.17 ± 9.35 (7 - 48) | 0.428 |
esteem | 127 | 12.63 ± 1.64 (10 - 20) | 12.73 ± 1.58 (10 - 18) | 12.52 ± 1.71 (10 - 20) | 0.472 |
mlq_search | 127 | 14.91 ± 3.52 (3 - 21) | 14.78 ± 3.22 (6 - 21) | 15.03 ± 3.82 (3 - 21) | 0.690 |
mlq_presence | 127 | 13.56 ± 4.19 (3 - 21) | 13.48 ± 3.73 (5 - 21) | 13.63 ± 4.65 (3 - 21) | 0.841 |
mlq | 127 | 28.46 ± 6.88 (6 - 42) | 28.27 ± 5.98 (12 - 40) | 28.67 ± 7.73 (6 - 42) | 0.744 |
empower | 127 | 19.23 ± 4.33 (6 - 30) | 18.88 ± 4.15 (11 - 30) | 19.59 ± 4.50 (6 - 30) | 0.356 |
ismi_resistance | 127 | 14.61 ± 2.58 (5 - 20) | 14.56 ± 2.20 (10 - 20) | 14.65 ± 2.93 (5 - 20) | 0.848 |
ismi_discrimation | 127 | 11.43 ± 3.12 (5 - 20) | 11.95 ± 3.01 (5 - 20) | 10.90 ± 3.17 (5 - 20) | 0.058 |
sss_affective | 127 | 9.94 ± 3.54 (3 - 18) | 10.11 ± 3.52 (3 - 18) | 9.76 ± 3.59 (3 - 18) | 0.583 |
sss_behavior | 127 | 9.59 ± 3.78 (3 - 18) | 9.95 ± 3.94 (3 - 18) | 9.22 ± 3.61 (3 - 18) | 0.278 |
sss_cognitive | 127 | 8.09 ± 3.66 (3 - 18) | 8.30 ± 3.79 (3 - 18) | 7.87 ± 3.54 (3 - 18) | 0.516 |
sss | 127 | 27.61 ± 10.12 (9 - 54) | 28.36 ± 10.34 (9 - 54) | 26.86 ± 9.92 (9 - 54) | 0.405 |
1Mean ± SD (Range) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test | |||||
Plot
## Warning: Removed 2 rows containing non-finite values (`stat_density()`).## Warning: Removed 1 rows containing missing values (`geom_vline()`).
Data analysis
Table
Group | Characteristic | Beta | SE1 | 95% CI1 | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | (Intercept) | 3.28 | 0.144 | 3.00, 3.56 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.186 | 0.204 | -0.585, 0.213 | 0.363 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.048 | 0.236 | -0.414, 0.510 | 0.840 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.473 | 0.336 | -0.186, 1.13 | 0.163 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.021 | ||||
recovery_stage_b | (Intercept) | 18.0 | 0.351 | 17.3, 18.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.015 | 0.498 | -0.961, 0.991 | 0.975 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.344 | 0.538 | -1.40, 0.711 | 0.525 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.800 | 0.768 | -0.706, 2.30 | 0.301 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.006 | ||||
ras_confidence | (Intercept) | 30.0 | 0.628 | 28.7, 31.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.317 | 0.892 | -1.43, 2.07 | 0.723 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.726 | 0.749 | -0.742, 2.19 | 0.336 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.08 | 1.069 | -1.02, 3.17 | 0.318 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.019 | ||||
ras_willingness | (Intercept) | 11.8 | 0.257 | 11.3, 12.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.219 | 0.365 | -0.497, 0.934 | 0.551 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.609 | 0.299 | -1.20, -0.022 | 0.046 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.802 | 0.427 | -0.035, 1.64 | 0.065 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.022 | ||||
ras_goal | (Intercept) | 17.3 | 0.397 | 16.5, 18.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.243 | 0.564 | -0.862, 1.35 | 0.667 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.422 | 0.498 | -1.40, 0.554 | 0.400 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.57 | 0.711 | 0.173, 2.96 | 0.031 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.027 | ||||
ras_reliance | (Intercept) | 13.2 | 0.359 | 12.5, 13.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.273 | 0.509 | -0.725, 1.27 | 0.593 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.337 | 0.405 | -0.456, 1.13 | 0.408 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.03 | 0.578 | -0.100, 2.16 | 0.079 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.034 | ||||
ras_domination | (Intercept) | 10.2 | 0.293 | 9.64, 10.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.600 | 0.416 | -1.42, 0.216 | 0.152 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.265 | 0.428 | -1.10, 0.574 | 0.538 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.39 | 0.611 | 0.197, 2.59 | 0.026 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.026 | ||||
symptom | (Intercept) | 30.0 | 1.177 | 27.7, 32.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.079 | 1.671 | -3.35, 3.20 | 0.962 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.141 | 1.090 | -2.28, 1.99 | 0.898 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.41 | 1.555 | -4.46, 1.63 | 0.367 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.004 | ||||
slof_work | (Intercept) | 22.7 | 0.588 | 21.6, 23.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.417 | 0.834 | -2.05, 1.22 | 0.618 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.279 | 0.654 | -1.56, 1.00 | 0.671 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.353 | 0.933 | -1.48, 2.18 | 0.706 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.002 | ||||
slof_relationship | (Intercept) | 25.0 | 0.722 | 23.6, 26.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.873 | 1.026 | -1.14, 2.88 | 0.396 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.16 | 0.770 | -2.67, 0.348 | 0.137 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.85 | 1.099 | -0.304, 4.00 | 0.098 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.020 | ||||
satisfaction | (Intercept) | 20.2 | 0.893 | 18.4, 21.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.21 | 1.267 | -1.27, 3.69 | 0.342 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.532 | 1.072 | -1.57, 2.63 | 0.621 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.550 | 1.530 | -2.45, 3.55 | 0.720 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.012 | ||||
mhc_emotional | (Intercept) | 10.8 | 0.467 | 9.91, 11.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.569 | 0.664 | -0.732, 1.87 | 0.393 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.351 | 0.503 | -0.634, 1.34 | 0.487 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.219 | 0.718 | -1.63, 1.19 | 0.761 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.006 | ||||
mhc_social | (Intercept) | 15.2 | 0.715 | 13.8, 16.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.129 | 1.015 | -1.86, 2.12 | 0.899 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.588 | 0.874 | -1.13, 2.30 | 0.504 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.314 | 1.248 | -2.76, 2.13 | 0.802 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.001 | ||||
mhc_psychological | (Intercept) | 21.9 | 0.817 | 20.3, 23.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.411 | 1.160 | -1.86, 2.68 | 0.724 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.665 | 0.982 | -1.26, 2.59 | 0.501 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.022 | 1.402 | -2.77, 2.73 | 0.988 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.003 | ||||
resilisnce | (Intercept) | 16.1 | 0.569 | 15.0, 17.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.986 | 0.808 | -0.598, 2.57 | 0.224 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.192 | 0.712 | -1.20, 1.59 | 0.788 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.40 | 1.016 | -0.587, 3.40 | 0.172 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.035 | ||||
social_provision | (Intercept) | 13.3 | 0.354 | 12.6, 14.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.783 | 0.502 | -0.201, 1.77 | 0.121 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.606 | 0.465 | -1.52, 0.305 | 0.197 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.745 | 0.663 | -0.555, 2.05 | 0.265 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.035 | ||||
els_value_living | (Intercept) | 16.7 | 0.384 | 15.9, 17.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.741 | 0.545 | -0.327, 1.81 | 0.176 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.232 | 0.479 | -0.707, 1.17 | 0.630 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.270 | 0.683 | -1.07, 1.61 | 0.694 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.021 | ||||
els_life_fulfill | (Intercept) | 12.3 | 0.421 | 11.5, 13.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.957 | 0.598 | -0.215, 2.13 | 0.112 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.558 | 0.411 | -0.247, 1.36 | 0.180 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.231 | 0.587 | -1.38, 0.919 | 0.695 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.021 | ||||
els | (Intercept) | 29.0 | 0.728 | 27.6, 30.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.70 | 1.034 | -0.329, 3.73 | 0.103 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.766 | 0.747 | -0.698, 2.23 | 0.309 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.064 | 1.066 | -2.02, 2.15 | 0.952 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.025 | ||||
social_connect | (Intercept) | 26.9 | 1.168 | 24.6, 29.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.29 | 1.659 | -4.54, 1.96 | 0.439 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.27 | 1.213 | -1.10, 3.65 | 0.298 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -3.66 | 1.732 | -7.06, -0.267 | 0.039 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.024 | ||||
shs_agency | (Intercept) | 14.0 | 0.641 | 12.8, 15.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.715 | 0.910 | -1.07, 2.50 | 0.434 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.063 | 0.683 | -1.27, 1.40 | 0.926 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.819 | 0.975 | -1.09, 2.73 | 0.404 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.012 | ||||
shs_pathway | (Intercept) | 15.9 | 0.488 | 15.0, 16.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.507 | 0.693 | -0.852, 1.87 | 0.466 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.151 | 0.525 | -0.878, 1.18 | 0.774 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.012 | 0.750 | -1.46, 1.48 | 0.987 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.005 | ||||
shs | (Intercept) | 30.0 | 1.074 | 27.8, 32.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.22 | 1.525 | -1.77, 4.21 | 0.425 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.217 | 1.106 | -1.95, 2.38 | 0.845 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.807 | 1.578 | -2.29, 3.90 | 0.611 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
esteem | (Intercept) | 12.7 | 0.192 | 12.4, 13.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.211 | 0.273 | -0.745, 0.324 | 0.441 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.008 | 0.307 | -0.610, 0.593 | 0.979 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.210 | 0.438 | -0.648, 1.07 | 0.634 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.004 | ||||
mlq_search | (Intercept) | 14.8 | 0.435 | 13.9, 15.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.250 | 0.617 | -0.959, 1.46 | 0.685 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.127 | 0.598 | -1.05, 1.30 | 0.833 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.200 | 0.853 | -1.87, 1.47 | 0.816 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.001 | ||||
mlq_presence | (Intercept) | 13.5 | 0.522 | 12.5, 14.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.151 | 0.740 | -1.30, 1.60 | 0.839 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.214 | 0.634 | -1.03, 1.46 | 0.737 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.081 | 0.905 | -1.69, 1.85 | 0.929 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.001 | ||||
mlq | (Intercept) | 28.3 | 0.862 | 26.6, 30.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.401 | 1.224 | -2.00, 2.80 | 0.744 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.351 | 1.091 | -1.79, 2.49 | 0.748 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.106 | 1.557 | -3.16, 2.95 | 0.946 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.001 | ||||
empower | (Intercept) | 18.9 | 0.541 | 17.8, 19.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.712 | 0.768 | -0.794, 2.22 | 0.356 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.199 | 0.551 | -0.881, 1.28 | 0.719 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.462 | 0.786 | -2.00, 1.08 | 0.559 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.005 | ||||
ismi_resistance | (Intercept) | 14.6 | 0.317 | 13.9, 15.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.088 | 0.450 | -0.793, 0.970 | 0.845 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.059 | 0.455 | -0.950, 0.833 | 0.898 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.523 | 0.649 | -0.749, 1.79 | 0.423 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.006 | ||||
ismi_discrimation | (Intercept) | 12.0 | 0.390 | 11.2, 12.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.05 | 0.554 | -2.13, 0.037 | 0.060 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.348 | 0.458 | -1.25, 0.551 | 0.451 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.362 | 0.654 | -0.920, 1.64 | 0.582 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.024 | ||||
sss_affective | (Intercept) | 10.1 | 0.437 | 9.25, 11.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.347 | 0.620 | -1.56, 0.868 | 0.576 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.137 | 0.497 | -0.837, 1.11 | 0.783 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.18 | 0.710 | -2.57, 0.214 | 0.102 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.019 | ||||
sss_behavior | (Intercept) | 9.95 | 0.465 | 9.04, 10.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.731 | 0.660 | -2.02, 0.562 | 0.270 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.032 | 0.538 | -1.09, 1.02 | 0.952 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.644 | 0.768 | -2.15, 0.861 | 0.405 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.018 | ||||
sss_cognitive | (Intercept) | 8.30 | 0.454 | 7.41, 9.19 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.424 | 0.644 | -1.69, 0.839 | 0.512 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.689 | 0.521 | -0.333, 1.71 | 0.191 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.31 | 0.744 | -2.76, 0.152 | 0.084 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.019 | ||||
sss | (Intercept) | 28.4 | 1.255 | 25.9, 30.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.50 | 1.782 | -4.99, 1.99 | 0.401 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.746 | 1.322 | -1.85, 3.34 | 0.575 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -3.00 | 1.887 | -6.70, 0.696 | 0.117 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.020 | ||||
1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval | |||||
Text
recovery_stage_a
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.30) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.28 (95% CI [3.00, 3.56], t(174) = 22.86, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.21], t(174) = -0.91, p = 0.361; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.19])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.51], t(174) = 0.20, p = 0.839; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.44])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-0.19, 1.13], t(174) = 1.41, p = 0.160; Std. beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.98])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
recovery_stage_b
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.40) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.27e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.97 (95% CI [17.28, 18.66], t(174) = 51.23, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.96, 0.99], t(174) = 0.03, p = 0.975; Std. beta = 5.50e-03, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.35])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.34, 95% CI [-1.40, 0.71], t(174) = -0.64, p = 0.523; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.25])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.80, 95% CI [-0.71, 2.30], t(174) = 1.04, p = 0.298; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.82])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_confidence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.97 (95% CI [28.74, 31.20], t(174) = 47.71, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-1.43, 2.07], t(174) = 0.36, p = 0.722; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.41])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.73, 95% CI [-0.74, 2.19], t(174) = 0.97, p = 0.332; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.44])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.08, 95% CI [-1.02, 3.17], t(174) = 1.01, p = 0.314; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.63])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_willingness
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.77 (95% CI [11.26, 12.27], t(174) = 45.73, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.93], t(174) = 0.60, p = 0.550; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.46])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.61, 95% CI [-1.20, -0.02], t(174) = -2.04, p = 0.042; Std. beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-0.58, -0.01])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.80, 95% CI [-0.04, 1.64], t(174) = 1.88, p = 0.060; Std. beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.80])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_goal
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.30 (95% CI [16.52, 18.07], t(174) = 43.57, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.86, 1.35], t(174) = 0.43, p = 0.667; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.42])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.42, 95% CI [-1.40, 0.55], t(174) = -0.85, p = 0.397; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.17])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.57, 95% CI [0.17, 2.96], t(174) = 2.20, p = 0.028; Std. beta = 0.49, 95% CI [0.05, 0.93])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_reliance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.19 (95% CI [12.48, 13.89], t(174) = 36.76, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.73, 1.27], t(174) = 0.54, p = 0.592; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.44])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.46, 1.13], t(174) = 0.83, p = 0.405; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.39])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.03, 95% CI [-0.10, 2.16], t(174) = 1.79, p = 0.074; Std. beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.74])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_domination
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.48) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.22 (95% CI [9.64, 10.79], t(174) = 34.87, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.60, 95% CI [-1.42, 0.22], t(174) = -1.44, p = 0.150; Std. beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-0.61, 0.09])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-1.10, 0.57], t(174) = -0.62, p = 0.536; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.25])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.39, 95% CI [0.20, 2.59], t(174) = 2.28, p = 0.022; Std. beta = 0.60, 95% CI [0.08, 1.11])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
symptom
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.81) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.50e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 30.03 (95% CI [27.73, 32.34], t(174) = 25.52, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-3.35, 3.20], t(174) = -0.05, p = 0.962; Std. beta = -8.33e-03, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.34])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-2.28, 1.99], t(174) = -0.13, p = 0.897; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.21])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.41, 95% CI [-4.46, 1.63], t(174) = -0.91, p = 0.363; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.17])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_work
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.51e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.73 (95% CI [21.58, 23.89], t(174) = 38.69, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.42, 95% CI [-2.05, 1.22], t(174) = -0.50, p = 0.617; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.26])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-1.56, 1.00], t(174) = -0.43, p = 0.670; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.21])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-1.48, 2.18], t(174) = 0.38, p = 0.705; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.47])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_relationship
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 25.02 (95% CI [23.60, 26.43], t(174) = 34.63, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.87, 95% CI [-1.14, 2.88], t(174) = 0.85, p = 0.395; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.50])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.16, 95% CI [-2.67, 0.35], t(174) = -1.51, p = 0.131; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.06])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.85, 95% CI [-0.30, 4.00], t(174) = 1.68, p = 0.092; Std. beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.69])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
satisfaction
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 20.17 (95% CI [18.42, 21.92], t(174) = 22.60, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.21, 95% CI [-1.27, 3.69], t(174) = 0.95, p = 0.340; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.52])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-1.57, 2.63], t(174) = 0.50, p = 0.620; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.37])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.55, 95% CI [-2.45, 3.55], t(174) = 0.36, p = 0.719; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.50])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_emotional
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.59e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.83 (95% CI [9.91, 11.74], t(174) = 23.17, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.57, 95% CI [-0.73, 1.87], t(174) = 0.86, p = 0.391; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.50])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.63, 1.34], t(174) = 0.70, p = 0.484; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.36])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-1.63, 1.19], t(174) = -0.31, p = 0.760; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.32])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_social
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.36e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.16 (95% CI [13.76, 16.56], t(174) = 21.21, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-1.86, 2.12], t(174) = 0.13, p = 0.898; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.38])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.59, 95% CI [-1.13, 2.30], t(174) = 0.67, p = 0.502; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.41])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-2.76, 2.13], t(174) = -0.25, p = 0.801; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.38])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_psychological
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.66) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.03e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.89 (95% CI [20.29, 23.49], t(174) = 26.79, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-1.86, 2.68], t(174) = 0.35, p = 0.723; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.41])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.66, 95% CI [-1.26, 2.59], t(174) = 0.68, p = 0.499; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.40])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-2.77, 2.73], t(174) = -0.02, p = 0.988; Std. beta = -3.33e-03, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.42])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
resilisnce
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.11 (95% CI [14.99, 17.22], t(174) = 28.31, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.99, 95% CI [-0.60, 2.57], t(174) = 1.22, p = 0.222; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.57])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-1.20, 1.59], t(174) = 0.27, p = 0.787; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.35])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.40, 95% CI [-0.59, 3.40], t(174) = 1.38, p = 0.167; Std. beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.75])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_provision
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.60) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.33 (95% CI [12.63, 14.02], t(174) = 37.68, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.78, 95% CI [-0.20, 1.77], t(174) = 1.56, p = 0.119; Std. beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.61])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.61, 95% CI [-1.52, 0.31], t(174) = -1.30, p = 0.193; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.11])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.75, 95% CI [-0.55, 2.05], t(174) = 1.12, p = 0.261; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.71])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_value_living
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.69 (95% CI [15.94, 17.44], t(174) = 43.50, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [-0.33, 1.81], t(174) = 1.36, p = 0.174; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.59])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.71, 1.17], t(174) = 0.48, p = 0.628; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.38])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-1.07, 1.61], t(174) = 0.40, p = 0.693; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.52])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_life_fulfill
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.30 (95% CI [11.47, 13.12], t(174) = 29.19, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.96, 95% CI [-0.22, 2.13], t(174) = 1.60, p = 0.110; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.64])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.56, 95% CI [-0.25, 1.36], t(174) = 1.36, p = 0.174; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.41])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-1.38, 0.92], t(174) = -0.39, p = 0.694; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.28])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.98 (95% CI [27.56, 30.41], t(174) = 39.79, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.70, 95% CI [-0.33, 3.73], t(174) = 1.64, p = 0.101; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.64])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.77, 95% CI [-0.70, 2.23], t(174) = 1.03, p = 0.305; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.38])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-2.02, 2.15], t(174) = 0.06, p = 0.952; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.37])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_connect
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 26.91 (95% CI [24.62, 29.20], t(174) = 23.03, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.29, 95% CI [-4.54, 1.96], t(174) = -0.78, p = 0.438; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.21])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.27, 95% CI [-1.10, 3.65], t(174) = 1.05, p = 0.294; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.39])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -3.66, 95% CI [-7.06, -0.27], t(174) = -2.11, p = 0.035; Std. beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-0.75, -0.03])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_agency
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.03 (95% CI [12.77, 15.29], t(174) = 21.89, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.71, 95% CI [-1.07, 2.50], t(174) = 0.79, p = 0.432; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.50])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-1.27, 1.40], t(174) = 0.09, p = 0.926; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.28])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.82, 95% CI [-1.09, 2.73], t(174) = 0.84, p = 0.401; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.54])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_pathway
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.60e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.92 (95% CI [14.97, 16.88], t(174) = 32.61, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.51, 95% CI [-0.85, 1.87], t(174) = 0.73, p = 0.465; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.48])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.88, 1.18], t(174) = 0.29, p = 0.773; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.31])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-1.46, 1.48], t(174) = 0.02, p = 0.987; Std. beta = 3.16e-03, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.38])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.67e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.95 (95% CI [27.85, 32.06], t(174) = 27.88, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.22, 95% CI [-1.77, 4.21], t(174) = 0.80, p = 0.423; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.50])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-1.95, 2.38], t(174) = 0.20, p = 0.844; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.28])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.81, 95% CI [-2.29, 3.90], t(174) = 0.51, p = 0.609; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.46])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
esteem
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.34) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.13e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.73 (95% CI [12.36, 13.11], t(174) = 66.31, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.75, 0.32], t(174) = -0.77, p = 0.440; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.21])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -8.15e-03, 95% CI [-0.61, 0.59], t(174) = -0.03, p = 0.979; Std. beta = -5.40e-03, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.39])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.65, 1.07], t(174) = 0.48, p = 0.631; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.71])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_search
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.54) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.48e-04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.78 (95% CI [13.93, 15.63], t(174) = 34.00, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.96, 1.46], t(174) = 0.41, p = 0.685; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.42])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-1.05, 1.30], t(174) = 0.21, p = 0.832; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.38])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-1.87, 1.47], t(174) = -0.23, p = 0.815; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.43])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_presence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.22e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.48 (95% CI [12.46, 14.51], t(174) = 25.86, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-1.30, 1.60], t(174) = 0.20, p = 0.839; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.39])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-1.03, 1.46], t(174) = 0.34, p = 0.735; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.35])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-1.69, 1.85], t(174) = 0.09, p = 0.929; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.45])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.62) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.12e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.27 (95% CI [26.58, 29.96], t(174) = 32.78, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.40, 95% CI [-2.00, 2.80], t(174) = 0.33, p = 0.743; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.41])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-1.79, 2.49], t(174) = 0.32, p = 0.747; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.36])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-3.16, 2.95], t(174) = -0.07, p = 0.946; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.43])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
empower
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.03e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.88 (95% CI [17.81, 19.94], t(174) = 34.88, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.71, 95% CI [-0.79, 2.22], t(174) = 0.93, p = 0.354; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.52])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.88, 1.28], t(174) = 0.36, p = 0.718; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.30])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.46, 95% CI [-2.00, 1.08], t(174) = -0.59, p = 0.557; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.25])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_resistance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.49) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.74e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.56 (95% CI [13.94, 15.18], t(174) = 45.96, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.79, 0.97], t(174) = 0.20, p = 0.844; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.38])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.95, 0.83], t(174) = -0.13, p = 0.897; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.33])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.52, 95% CI [-0.75, 1.79], t(174) = 0.81, p = 0.421; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.71])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_discrimation
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.95 (95% CI [11.19, 12.72], t(174) = 30.63, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.05, 95% CI [-2.13, 0.04], t(174) = -1.89, p = 0.058; Std. beta = -0.33, 95% CI [-0.67, 0.01])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-1.25, 0.55], t(174) = -0.76, p = 0.448; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.17])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.92, 1.64], t(174) = 0.55, p = 0.580; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.52])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_affective
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.11 (95% CI [9.25, 10.97], t(174) = 23.14, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-1.56, 0.87], t(174) = -0.56, p = 0.575; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.24])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.84, 1.11], t(174) = 0.28, p = 0.783; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.31])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.18, 95% CI [-2.57, 0.21], t(174) = -1.66, p = 0.097; Std. beta = -0.33, 95% CI [-0.72, 0.06])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_behavior
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.95 (95% CI [9.04, 10.86], t(174) = 21.42, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.73, 95% CI [-2.02, 0.56], t(174) = -1.11, p = 0.268; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.15])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-1.09, 1.02], t(174) = -0.06, p = 0.952; Std. beta = -8.57e-03, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.27])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.64, 95% CI [-2.15, 0.86], t(174) = -0.84, p = 0.402; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.23])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_cognitive
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.30 (95% CI [7.41, 9.19], t(174) = 18.28, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.42, 95% CI [-1.69, 0.84], t(174) = -0.66, p = 0.511; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.23])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.69, 95% CI [-0.33, 1.71], t(174) = 1.32, p = 0.186; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.46])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.31, 95% CI [-2.76, 0.15], t(174) = -1.76, p = 0.079; Std. beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-0.75, 0.04])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.36 (95% CI [25.90, 30.82], t(174) = 22.60, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.50, 95% CI [-4.99, 1.99], t(174) = -0.84, p = 0.399; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.19])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.75, 95% CI [-1.85, 3.34], t(174) = 0.56, p = 0.573; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.32])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.00, 95% CI [-6.70, 0.70], t(174) = -1.59, p = 0.112; Std. beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-0.65, 0.07])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
Likelihood ratio tests
outcome | model | npar | AIC | BIC | logLik | deviance | Chisq | Df | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | null | 3 | 563.105 | 572.684 | -278.552 | 557.105 | |||
recovery_stage_a | random | 6 | 564.197 | 583.355 | -276.099 | 552.197 | 4.908 | 3 | 0.179 |
recovery_stage_b | null | 3 | 876.395 | 885.974 | -435.198 | 870.395 | |||
recovery_stage_b | random | 6 | 881.046 | 900.203 | -434.523 | 869.046 | 1.350 | 3 | 0.717 |
ras_confidence | null | 3 | 1,069.546 | 1,079.125 | -531.773 | 1,063.546 | |||
ras_confidence | random | 6 | 1,068.678 | 1,087.836 | -528.339 | 1,056.678 | 6.868 | 3 | 0.076 |
ras_willingness | null | 3 | 744.692 | 754.271 | -369.346 | 738.692 | |||
ras_willingness | random | 6 | 744.917 | 764.075 | -366.458 | 732.917 | 5.775 | 3 | 0.123 |
ras_goal | null | 3 | 909.166 | 918.745 | -451.583 | 903.166 | |||
ras_goal | random | 6 | 908.206 | 927.363 | -448.103 | 896.206 | 6.961 | 3 | 0.073 |
ras_reliance | null | 3 | 867.883 | 877.462 | -430.941 | 861.883 | |||
ras_reliance | random | 6 | 861.651 | 880.809 | -424.826 | 849.651 | 12.232 | 3 | 0.007 |
ras_domination | null | 3 | 813.688 | 823.267 | -403.844 | 807.688 | |||
ras_domination | random | 6 | 812.431 | 831.588 | -400.215 | 800.431 | 7.257 | 3 | 0.064 |
symptom | null | 3 | 1,265.774 | 1,275.353 | -629.887 | 1,259.774 | |||
symptom | random | 6 | 1,269.713 | 1,288.871 | -628.856 | 1,257.713 | 2.061 | 3 | 0.560 |
slof_work | null | 3 | 1,032.277 | 1,041.856 | -513.139 | 1,026.277 | |||
slof_work | random | 6 | 1,037.900 | 1,057.058 | -512.950 | 1,025.900 | 0.377 | 3 | 0.945 |
slof_relationship | null | 3 | 1,106.867 | 1,116.446 | -550.434 | 1,100.867 | |||
slof_relationship | random | 6 | 1,108.135 | 1,127.293 | -548.068 | 1,096.135 | 4.732 | 3 | 0.192 |
satisfaction | null | 3 | 1,192.253 | 1,201.832 | -593.127 | 1,186.253 | |||
satisfaction | random | 6 | 1,195.791 | 1,214.949 | -591.896 | 1,183.791 | 2.462 | 3 | 0.482 |
mhc_emotional | null | 3 | 947.486 | 957.064 | -470.743 | 941.486 | |||
mhc_emotional | random | 6 | 952.258 | 971.416 | -470.129 | 940.258 | 1.228 | 3 | 0.746 |
mhc_social | null | 3 | 1,112.082 | 1,121.661 | -553.041 | 1,106.082 | |||
mhc_social | random | 6 | 1,117.516 | 1,136.674 | -552.758 | 1,105.516 | 0.566 | 3 | 0.904 |
mhc_psychological | null | 3 | 1,159.114 | 1,168.692 | -576.557 | 1,153.114 | |||
mhc_psychological | random | 6 | 1,164.087 | 1,183.245 | -576.044 | 1,152.087 | 1.026 | 3 | 0.795 |
resilisnce | null | 3 | 1,039.345 | 1,048.924 | -516.673 | 1,033.345 | |||
resilisnce | random | 6 | 1,037.645 | 1,056.803 | -512.823 | 1,025.645 | 7.700 | 3 | 0.053 |
social_provision | null | 3 | 870.786 | 880.365 | -432.393 | 864.786 | |||
social_provision | random | 6 | 870.912 | 890.070 | -429.456 | 858.912 | 5.874 | 3 | 0.118 |
els_value_living | null | 3 | 893.129 | 902.708 | -443.565 | 887.129 | |||
els_value_living | random | 6 | 895.419 | 914.577 | -441.710 | 883.419 | 3.710 | 3 | 0.295 |
els_life_fulfill | null | 3 | 904.049 | 913.627 | -449.024 | 898.049 | |||
els_life_fulfill | random | 6 | 905.145 | 924.303 | -446.573 | 893.145 | 4.903 | 3 | 0.179 |
els | null | 3 | 1,106.421 | 1,116.000 | -550.211 | 1,100.421 | |||
els | random | 6 | 1,107.252 | 1,126.409 | -547.626 | 1,095.252 | 5.170 | 3 | 0.160 |
social_connect | null | 3 | 1,279.107 | 1,288.685 | -636.553 | 1,273.107 | |||
social_connect | random | 6 | 1,278.583 | 1,297.741 | -633.292 | 1,266.583 | 6.523 | 3 | 0.089 |
shs_agency | null | 3 | 1,061.722 | 1,071.301 | -527.861 | 1,055.722 | |||
shs_agency | random | 6 | 1,065.027 | 1,084.184 | -526.513 | 1,053.027 | 2.696 | 3 | 0.441 |
shs_pathway | null | 3 | 962.731 | 972.310 | -478.365 | 956.731 | |||
shs_pathway | random | 6 | 967.976 | 987.133 | -477.988 | 955.976 | 0.755 | 3 | 0.860 |
shs | null | 3 | 1,243.317 | 1,252.896 | -618.658 | 1,237.317 | |||
shs | random | 6 | 1,247.532 | 1,266.690 | -617.766 | 1,235.532 | 1.785 | 3 | 0.618 |
esteem | null | 3 | 661.993 | 671.572 | -327.996 | 655.993 | |||
esteem | random | 6 | 667.154 | 686.312 | -327.577 | 655.154 | 0.839 | 3 | 0.840 |
mlq_search | null | 3 | 943.432 | 953.011 | -468.716 | 937.432 | |||
mlq_search | random | 6 | 949.249 | 968.406 | -468.624 | 937.249 | 0.184 | 3 | 0.980 |
mlq_presence | null | 3 | 997.849 | 1,007.428 | -495.925 | 991.849 | |||
mlq_presence | random | 6 | 1,003.458 | 1,022.616 | -495.729 | 991.458 | 0.391 | 3 | 0.942 |
mlq | null | 3 | 1,182.528 | 1,192.107 | -588.264 | 1,176.528 | |||
mlq | random | 6 | 1,188.265 | 1,207.422 | -588.132 | 1,176.265 | 0.263 | 3 | 0.967 |
empower | null | 3 | 994.592 | 1,004.170 | -494.296 | 988.592 | |||
empower | random | 6 | 999.560 | 1,018.717 | -493.780 | 987.560 | 1.032 | 3 | 0.794 |
ismi_resistance | null | 3 | 834.347 | 843.926 | -414.173 | 828.347 | |||
ismi_resistance | random | 6 | 839.037 | 858.195 | -413.519 | 827.037 | 1.310 | 3 | 0.727 |
ismi_discrimation | null | 3 | 893.679 | 903.258 | -443.840 | 887.679 | |||
ismi_discrimation | random | 6 | 895.802 | 914.960 | -441.901 | 883.802 | 3.877 | 3 | 0.275 |
sss_affective | null | 3 | 932.831 | 942.409 | -463.415 | 926.831 | |||
sss_affective | random | 6 | 933.442 | 952.600 | -460.721 | 921.442 | 5.389 | 3 | 0.145 |
sss_behavior | null | 3 | 954.771 | 964.349 | -474.385 | 948.771 | |||
sss_behavior | random | 6 | 957.311 | 976.469 | -472.656 | 945.311 | 3.459 | 3 | 0.326 |
sss_cognitive | null | 3 | 946.555 | 956.134 | -470.277 | 940.555 | |||
sss_cognitive | random | 6 | 948.054 | 967.212 | -468.027 | 936.054 | 4.500 | 3 | 0.212 |
sss | null | 3 | 1,304.535 | 1,314.113 | -649.267 | 1,298.535 | |||
sss | random | 6 | 1,305.782 | 1,324.940 | -646.891 | 1,293.782 | 4.753 | 3 | 0.191 |
Post hoc analysis
Table
outcome | time | control | treatment | between | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | estimate | within es | n | estimate | within es | p | es | ||
recovery_stage_a | 1st | 64 | 3.28 ± 1.15 | 63 | 3.10 ± 1.15 | 0.363 | 0.191 | ||
recovery_stage_a | 2nd | 27 | 3.33 ± 1.13 | -0.049 | 26 | 3.62 ± 1.13 | -0.535 | 0.358 | -0.294 |
recovery_stage_b | 1st | 64 | 17.97 ± 2.81 | 63 | 17.98 ± 2.81 | 0.975 | -0.007 | ||
recovery_stage_b | 2nd | 27 | 17.62 ± 2.70 | 0.158 | 26 | 18.44 ± 2.69 | -0.209 | 0.273 | -0.374 |
ras_confidence | 1st | 64 | 29.97 ± 5.03 | 63 | 30.29 ± 5.03 | 0.723 | -0.109 | ||
ras_confidence | 2nd | 27 | 30.69 ± 4.35 | -0.251 | 26 | 32.09 ± 4.33 | -0.622 | 0.245 | -0.481 |
ras_willingness | 1st | 64 | 11.77 ± 2.06 | 63 | 11.98 ± 2.06 | 0.551 | -0.189 | ||
ras_willingness | 2nd | 27 | 11.16 ± 1.76 | 0.528 | 26 | 12.18 ± 1.76 | -0.167 | 0.036 | -0.885 |
ras_goal | 1st | 64 | 17.30 ± 3.18 | 63 | 17.54 ± 3.18 | 0.667 | -0.125 | ||
ras_goal | 2nd | 27 | 16.87 ± 2.80 | 0.218 | 26 | 18.68 ± 2.80 | -0.591 | 0.020 | -0.934 |
ras_reliance | 1st | 64 | 13.19 ± 2.87 | 63 | 13.46 ± 2.87 | 0.593 | -0.175 | ||
ras_reliance | 2nd | 27 | 13.52 ± 2.43 | -0.217 | 26 | 14.83 ± 2.42 | -0.881 | 0.052 | -0.839 |
ras_domination | 1st | 64 | 10.22 ± 2.34 | 63 | 9.62 ± 2.34 | 0.151 | 0.351 | ||
ras_domination | 2nd | 27 | 9.95 ± 2.21 | 0.155 | 26 | 10.75 ± 2.20 | -0.660 | 0.192 | -0.464 |
symptom | 1st | 64 | 30.03 ± 9.41 | 63 | 29.95 ± 9.41 | 0.962 | 0.019 | ||
symptom | 2nd | 27 | 29.89 ± 7.44 | 0.034 | 26 | 28.40 ± 7.40 | 0.378 | 0.465 | 0.363 |
slof_work | 1st | 64 | 22.73 ± 4.70 | 63 | 22.32 ± 4.70 | 0.618 | 0.166 | ||
slof_work | 2nd | 27 | 22.46 ± 3.96 | 0.111 | 26 | 22.39 ± 3.94 | -0.030 | 0.953 | 0.025 |
slof_relationship | 1st | 64 | 25.02 ± 5.78 | 63 | 25.89 ± 5.78 | 0.396 | -0.297 | ||
slof_relationship | 2nd | 27 | 23.85 ± 4.79 | 0.395 | 26 | 26.58 ± 4.77 | -0.234 | 0.040 | -0.926 |
satisfaction | 1st | 64 | 20.17 ± 7.14 | 63 | 21.38 ± 7.14 | 0.342 | -0.292 | ||
satisfaction | 2nd | 27 | 20.70 ± 6.19 | -0.128 | 26 | 22.46 ± 6.18 | -0.261 | 0.302 | -0.424 |
mhc_emotional | 1st | 64 | 10.83 ± 3.74 | 63 | 11.40 ± 3.74 | 0.393 | -0.296 | ||
mhc_emotional | 2nd | 27 | 11.18 ± 3.11 | -0.183 | 26 | 11.53 ± 3.10 | -0.069 | 0.682 | -0.182 |
mhc_social | 1st | 64 | 15.16 ± 5.72 | 63 | 15.29 ± 5.72 | 0.899 | -0.038 | ||
mhc_social | 2nd | 27 | 15.74 ± 5.00 | -0.173 | 26 | 15.56 ± 4.98 | -0.081 | 0.893 | 0.054 |
mhc_psychological | 1st | 64 | 21.89 ± 6.54 | 63 | 22.30 ± 6.54 | 0.724 | -0.108 | ||
mhc_psychological | 2nd | 27 | 22.56 ± 5.67 | -0.175 | 26 | 22.94 ± 5.66 | -0.169 | 0.803 | -0.102 |
resilisnce | 1st | 64 | 16.11 ± 4.55 | 63 | 17.10 ± 4.55 | 0.224 | -0.356 | ||
resilisnce | 2nd | 27 | 16.30 ± 4.01 | -0.070 | 26 | 18.69 ± 4.01 | -0.577 | 0.031 | -0.863 |
social_provision | 1st | 64 | 13.33 ± 2.83 | 63 | 14.11 ± 2.83 | 0.121 | -0.430 | ||
social_provision | 2nd | 27 | 12.72 ± 2.55 | 0.333 | 26 | 14.25 ± 2.54 | -0.077 | 0.030 | -0.839 |
els_value_living | 1st | 64 | 16.69 ± 3.07 | 63 | 17.43 ± 3.07 | 0.176 | -0.398 | ||
els_value_living | 2nd | 27 | 16.92 ± 2.70 | -0.125 | 26 | 17.93 ± 2.70 | -0.270 | 0.175 | -0.543 |
els_life_fulfill | 1st | 64 | 12.30 ± 3.37 | 63 | 13.25 ± 3.37 | 0.112 | -0.614 | ||
els_life_fulfill | 2nd | 27 | 12.86 ± 2.71 | -0.358 | 26 | 13.58 ± 2.70 | -0.210 | 0.329 | -0.466 |
els | 1st | 64 | 28.98 ± 5.83 | 63 | 30.68 ± 5.83 | 0.103 | -0.597 | ||
els | 2nd | 27 | 29.75 ± 4.76 | -0.269 | 26 | 31.51 ± 4.74 | -0.292 | 0.179 | -0.620 |
social_connect | 1st | 64 | 26.91 ± 9.35 | 63 | 25.62 ± 9.35 | 0.439 | 0.278 | ||
social_connect | 2nd | 27 | 28.18 ± 7.67 | -0.275 | 26 | 23.23 ± 7.64 | 0.516 | 0.020 | 1.070 |
shs_agency | 1st | 64 | 14.03 ± 5.13 | 63 | 14.75 ± 5.13 | 0.434 | -0.274 | ||
shs_agency | 2nd | 27 | 14.09 ± 4.25 | -0.024 | 26 | 15.63 ± 4.23 | -0.338 | 0.190 | -0.588 |
shs_pathway | 1st | 64 | 15.92 ± 3.91 | 63 | 16.43 ± 3.91 | 0.466 | -0.252 | ||
shs_pathway | 2nd | 27 | 16.07 ± 3.25 | -0.075 | 26 | 16.59 ± 3.24 | -0.081 | 0.561 | -0.258 |
shs | 1st | 64 | 29.95 ± 8.59 | 63 | 31.17 ± 8.59 | 0.425 | -0.290 | ||
shs | 2nd | 27 | 30.17 ± 7.03 | -0.052 | 26 | 32.20 ± 7.00 | -0.243 | 0.294 | -0.482 |
esteem | 1st | 64 | 12.73 ± 1.54 | 63 | 12.52 ± 1.54 | 0.441 | 0.168 | ||
esteem | 2nd | 27 | 12.73 ± 1.50 | 0.006 | 26 | 12.73 ± 1.50 | -0.161 | 0.999 | 0.000 |
mlq_search | 1st | 64 | 14.78 ± 3.48 | 63 | 15.03 ± 3.48 | 0.685 | -0.106 | ||
mlq_search | 2nd | 27 | 14.91 ± 3.19 | -0.054 | 26 | 14.96 ± 3.19 | 0.031 | 0.954 | -0.021 |
mlq_presence | 1st | 64 | 13.48 ± 4.17 | 63 | 13.63 ± 4.17 | 0.839 | -0.061 | ||
mlq_presence | 2nd | 27 | 13.70 ± 3.64 | -0.087 | 26 | 13.93 ± 3.63 | -0.120 | 0.817 | -0.094 |
mlq | 1st | 64 | 28.27 ± 6.90 | 63 | 28.67 ± 6.90 | 0.744 | -0.094 | ||
mlq | 2nd | 27 | 28.62 ± 6.11 | -0.083 | 26 | 28.91 ± 6.10 | -0.058 | 0.860 | -0.070 |
empower | 1st | 64 | 18.88 ± 4.33 | 63 | 19.59 ± 4.33 | 0.356 | -0.340 | ||
empower | 2nd | 27 | 19.07 ± 3.53 | -0.095 | 26 | 19.32 ± 3.51 | 0.125 | 0.796 | -0.120 |
ismi_resistance | 1st | 64 | 14.56 ± 2.53 | 63 | 14.65 ± 2.53 | 0.845 | -0.049 | ||
ismi_resistance | 2nd | 27 | 14.50 ± 2.37 | 0.032 | 26 | 15.11 ± 2.37 | -0.256 | 0.349 | -0.338 |
ismi_discrimation | 1st | 64 | 11.95 ± 3.12 | 63 | 10.90 ± 3.12 | 0.060 | 0.593 | ||
ismi_discrimation | 2nd | 27 | 11.61 ± 2.68 | 0.197 | 26 | 10.92 ± 2.68 | -0.008 | 0.353 | 0.388 |
sss_affective | 1st | 64 | 10.11 ± 3.50 | 63 | 9.76 ± 3.50 | 0.576 | 0.182 | ||
sss_affective | 2nd | 27 | 10.25 ± 2.97 | -0.072 | 26 | 8.72 ± 2.96 | 0.544 | 0.063 | 0.797 |
sss_behavior | 1st | 64 | 9.95 ± 3.72 | 63 | 9.22 ± 3.72 | 0.270 | 0.353 | ||
sss_behavior | 2nd | 27 | 9.92 ± 3.18 | 0.016 | 26 | 8.55 ± 3.17 | 0.326 | 0.117 | 0.663 |
sss_cognitive | 1st | 64 | 8.30 ± 3.63 | 63 | 7.87 ± 3.63 | 0.512 | 0.211 | ||
sss_cognitive | 2nd | 27 | 8.99 ± 3.09 | -0.343 | 26 | 7.26 ± 3.08 | 0.308 | 0.043 | 0.862 |
sss | 1st | 64 | 28.36 ± 10.04 | 63 | 26.86 ± 10.04 | 0.401 | 0.298 | ||
sss | 2nd | 27 | 29.11 ± 8.28 | -0.148 | 26 | 24.60 ± 8.25 | 0.447 | 0.049 | 0.893 |
Between group
recovery_stage_a
1st
t(168.47) = -0.91, p = 0.363, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-0.59 to 0.22)
2st
t(169.30) = 0.92, p = 0.358, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.33 to 0.90)
recovery_stage_b
1st
t(162.02) = 0.03, p = 0.975, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-0.97 to 1.00)
2st
t(165.34) = 1.10, p = 0.273, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-0.65 to 2.28)
ras_confidence
1st
t(144.53) = 0.36, p = 0.723, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-1.45 to 2.08)
2st
t(166.73) = 1.17, p = 0.245, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-0.96 to 3.75)
ras_willingness
1st
t(143.35) = 0.60, p = 0.551, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.50 to 0.94)
2st
t(167.68) = 2.11, p = 0.036, Cohen d = -0.88, 95% CI (0.07 to 1.97)
ras_goal
1st
t(147.16) = 0.43, p = 0.667, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.87 to 1.36)
2st
t(165.05) = 2.35, p = 0.020, Cohen d = -0.93, 95% CI (0.29 to 3.33)
ras_reliance
1st
t(142.04) = 0.54, p = 0.593, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.73 to 1.28)
2st
t(168.86) = 1.96, p = 0.052, Cohen d = -0.84, 95% CI (-0.01 to 2.62)
ras_domination
1st
t(157.69) = -1.44, p = 0.151, Cohen d = 0.35, 95% CI (-1.42 to 0.22)
2st
t(163.80) = 1.31, p = 0.192, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-0.40 to 1.99)
symptom
1st
t(135.68) = -0.05, p = 0.962, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-3.38 to 3.22)
2st
t(175.18) = -0.73, p = 0.465, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-5.52 to 2.53)
slof_work
1st
t(141.45) = -0.50, p = 0.618, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-2.07 to 1.23)
2st
t(169.42) = -0.06, p = 0.953, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-2.21 to 2.08)
slof_relationship
1st
t(139.86) = 0.85, p = 0.396, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-1.15 to 2.90)
2st
t(171.06) = 2.07, p = 0.040, Cohen d = -0.93, 95% CI (0.13 to 5.32)
satisfaction
1st
t(144.86) = 0.95, p = 0.342, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-1.30 to 3.71)
2st
t(166.49) = 1.04, p = 0.302, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-1.60 to 5.11)
mhc_emotional
1st
t(140.18) = 0.86, p = 0.393, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.74 to 1.88)
2st
t(170.73) = 0.41, p = 0.682, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-1.33 to 2.03)
mhc_social
1st
t(145.80) = 0.13, p = 0.899, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-1.88 to 2.13)
2st
t(165.84) = -0.13, p = 0.893, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-2.89 to 2.52)
mhc_psychological
1st
t(144.91) = 0.35, p = 0.724, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-1.88 to 2.70)
2st
t(166.45) = 0.25, p = 0.803, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-2.68 to 3.46)
resilisnce
1st
t(147.02) = 1.22, p = 0.224, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.61 to 2.58)
2st
t(165.13) = 2.17, p = 0.031, Cohen d = -0.86, 95% CI (0.22 to 4.57)
social_provision
1st
t(149.93) = 1.56, p = 0.121, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (-0.21 to 1.78)
2st
t(163.92) = 2.19, p = 0.030, Cohen d = -0.84, 95% CI (0.15 to 2.91)
els_value_living
1st
t(146.87) = 1.36, p = 0.176, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-0.34 to 1.82)
2st
t(165.21) = 1.36, p = 0.175, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (-0.45 to 2.48)
els_life_fulfill
1st
t(137.05) = 1.60, p = 0.112, Cohen d = -0.61, 95% CI (-0.23 to 2.14)
2st
t(174.00) = 0.98, p = 0.329, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-0.74 to 2.19)
els
1st
t(138.53) = 1.64, p = 0.103, Cohen d = -0.60, 95% CI (-0.35 to 3.74)
2st
t(172.48) = 1.35, p = 0.179, Cohen d = -0.62, 95% CI (-0.81 to 4.34)
social_connect
1st
t(138.96) = -0.78, p = 0.439, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-4.57 to 1.99)
2st
t(172.02) = -2.35, p = 0.020, Cohen d = 1.07, 95% CI (-9.10 to -0.80)
shs_agency
1st
t(139.82) = 0.79, p = 0.434, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-1.08 to 2.51)
2st
t(171.10) = 1.32, p = 0.190, Cohen d = -0.59, 95% CI (-0.77 to 3.83)
shs_pathway
1st
t(140.20) = 0.73, p = 0.466, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.86 to 1.88)
2st
t(170.70) = 0.58, p = 0.561, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-1.24 to 2.28)
shs
1st
t(138.67) = 0.80, p = 0.425, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-1.79 to 4.24)
2st
t(172.33) = 1.05, p = 0.294, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-1.78 to 5.84)
esteem
1st
t(165.84) = -0.77, p = 0.441, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-0.75 to 0.33)
2st
t(167.47) = -0.00, p = 0.999, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-0.81 to 0.81)
mlq_search
1st
t(153.00) = 0.41, p = 0.685, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-0.97 to 1.47)
2st
t(163.37) = 0.06, p = 0.954, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-1.68 to 1.78)
mlq_presence
1st
t(145.46) = 0.20, p = 0.839, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-1.31 to 1.61)
2st
t(166.07) = 0.23, p = 0.817, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-1.74 to 2.20)
mlq
1st
t(147.64) = 0.33, p = 0.744, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-2.02 to 2.82)
2st
t(164.81) = 0.18, p = 0.860, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-3.02 to 3.61)
empower
1st
t(138.31) = 0.93, p = 0.356, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.81 to 2.23)
2st
t(172.72) = 0.26, p = 0.796, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.66 to 2.16)
ismi_resistance
1st
t(156.23) = 0.20, p = 0.845, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-0.80 to 0.98)
2st
t(163.52) = 0.94, p = 0.349, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.67 to 1.90)
ismi_discrimation
1st
t(143.81) = -1.89, p = 0.060, Cohen d = 0.59, 95% CI (-2.14 to 0.05)
2st
t(167.29) = -0.93, p = 0.353, Cohen d = 0.39, 95% CI (-2.14 to 0.77)
sss_affective
1st
t(142.40) = -0.56, p = 0.576, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-1.57 to 0.88)
2st
t(168.52) = -1.87, p = 0.063, Cohen d = 0.80, 95% CI (-3.13 to 0.08)
sss_behavior
1st
t(143.17) = -1.11, p = 0.270, Cohen d = 0.35, 95% CI (-2.03 to 0.57)
2st
t(167.84) = -1.58, p = 0.117, Cohen d = 0.66, 95% CI (-3.10 to 0.35)
sss_cognitive
1st
t(142.81) = -0.66, p = 0.512, Cohen d = 0.21, 95% CI (-1.70 to 0.85)
2st
t(168.15) = -2.04, p = 0.043, Cohen d = 0.86, 95% CI (-3.41 to -0.05)
sss
1st
t(139.44) = -0.84, p = 0.401, Cohen d = 0.30, 95% CI (-5.03 to 2.02)
2st
t(171.50) = -1.98, p = 0.049, Cohen d = 0.89, 95% CI (-8.99 to -0.02)
Within treatment group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(87.73) = 2.15, p = 0.068, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (0.04 to 1.00)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(79.37) = 0.83, p = 0.823, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.64 to 1.55)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(63.76) = 2.35, p = 0.044, Cohen d = -0.62, 95% CI (0.27 to 3.33)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(62.90) = 0.63, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.42 to 0.80)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(65.76) = 2.24, p = 0.056, Cohen d = -0.59, 95% CI (0.13 to 2.16)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(61.95) = 3.31, p = 0.003, Cohen d = -0.88, 95% CI (0.54 to 2.20)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(74.85) = 2.57, p = 0.024, Cohen d = -0.66, 95% CI (0.25 to 2.00)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(57.61) = -1.40, p = 0.335, Cohen d = 0.38, 95% CI (-3.78 to 0.67)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(61.54) = 0.11, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-1.26 to 1.41)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(60.42) = 0.87, p = 0.771, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.89 to 2.26)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(64.01) = 0.99, p = 0.655, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-1.11 to 3.27)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(60.64) = 0.26, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-0.90 to 1.16)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(64.72) = 0.31, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-1.51 to 2.06)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(64.05) = 0.64, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-1.37 to 2.65)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(65.65) = 2.19, p = 0.064, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (0.14 to 3.05)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(67.96) = 0.29, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-0.81 to 1.09)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(65.53) = 1.02, p = 0.619, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.48 to 1.48)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(58.52) = 0.78, p = 0.878, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.51 to 1.17)
els
1st vs 2st
t(59.51) = 1.09, p = 0.562, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.70 to 2.36)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(59.80) = -1.92, p = 0.118, Cohen d = 0.52, 95% CI (-4.87 to 0.09)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(60.40) = 1.26, p = 0.423, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.51 to 2.28)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(60.66) = 0.30, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-0.91 to 1.24)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(59.60) = 0.91, p = 0.737, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-1.24 to 3.29)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(84.00) = 0.64, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.42 to 0.83)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(70.54) = -0.12, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-1.29 to 1.15)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(64.46) = 0.45, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.00 to 1.59)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(66.13) = 0.22, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-1.98 to 2.48)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(59.36) = -0.47, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-1.39 to 0.86)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(73.46) = 1.00, p = 0.646, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.46 to 1.39)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(63.23) = 0.03, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-0.92 to 0.95)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(62.21) = -2.04, p = 0.090, Cohen d = 0.54, 95% CI (-2.06 to -0.02)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(62.77) = -1.23, p = 0.447, Cohen d = 0.33, 95% CI (-1.78 to 0.42)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(62.51) = -1.16, p = 0.503, Cohen d = 0.31, 95% CI (-1.68 to 0.45)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(60.14) = -1.67, p = 0.201, Cohen d = 0.45, 95% CI (-4.96 to 0.45)
Within control group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(86.97) = 0.20, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-0.42 to 0.52)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(78.80) = -0.63, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-1.42 to 0.74)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(63.53) = 0.96, p = 0.677, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.78 to 2.23)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(62.69) = -2.03, p = 0.094, Cohen d = 0.53, 95% CI (-1.21 to -0.01)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(65.49) = -0.84, p = 0.804, Cohen d = 0.22, 95% CI (-1.42 to 0.58)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(61.76) = 0.83, p = 0.820, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.48 to 1.15)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(74.39) = -0.61, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-1.12 to 0.59)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(57.50) = -0.13, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-2.33 to 2.05)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(61.35) = -0.42, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-1.59 to 1.03)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(60.26) = -1.50, p = 0.276, Cohen d = 0.39, 95% CI (-2.71 to 0.38)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(63.78) = 0.49, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-1.62 to 2.68)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(60.47) = 0.70, p = 0.978, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.66 to 1.36)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(64.47) = 0.67, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-1.17 to 2.34)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(63.81) = 0.67, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-1.31 to 2.64)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(65.38) = 0.27, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.24 to 1.62)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(67.64) = -1.30, p = 0.399, Cohen d = 0.33, 95% CI (-1.54 to 0.33)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(65.27) = 0.48, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.73 to 1.19)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(58.39) = 1.35, p = 0.362, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.27 to 1.38)
els
1st vs 2st
t(59.36) = 1.02, p = 0.622, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.73 to 2.26)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(59.65) = 1.05, p = 0.599, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-1.16 to 3.71)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(60.23) = 0.09, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-1.31 to 1.43)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(60.49) = 0.29, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-0.90 to 1.21)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(59.46) = 0.20, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-2.00 to 2.44)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(83.32) = -0.03, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-0.62 to 0.61)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(70.16) = 0.21, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-1.07 to 1.33)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(64.22) = 0.34, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-1.06 to 1.49)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(65.85) = 0.32, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-1.84 to 2.54)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(59.22) = 0.36, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.91 to 1.30)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(73.02) = -0.13, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-0.97 to 0.85)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(63.02) = -0.75, p = 0.907, Cohen d = 0.20, 95% CI (-1.27 to 0.57)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(62.02) = 0.27, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-0.86 to 1.14)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(62.56) = -0.06, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-1.11 to 1.05)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(62.30) = 1.32, p = 0.386, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.36 to 1.74)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(59.98) = 0.56, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-1.91 to 3.40)
Plot
